User talk:Dmon

Archives[edit]

Current[edit]

Deletion request[edit]

Hello Dmon, can please delete all my pages in the list below. I decide for myself to delete all the old stuff and for new stuff in the future I will communicate about the topics with the admins and other user. My goal is cooperation and not like in the past single work without proper quality. neuling

Ranks[edit]

I've started a review about the information available for the in-universe rank structure, and I imagined, there are several ranks which are user very differently depending on the country (roughtly what happens with regular real army). For example, in the Castillan Principalities a "Captain" is called "Major", and commands a company of troops, while for many other countries a Major is a Battalion leader... Which is the suggested way to work throught this? A "disambiguation page" like the one existing for Commander? That said, I'm fairy sure now Major is called in several pages and moving the page could be a pain to track via wiki. Any suggestions?--Pserratv (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2019 (EST)

And on top of that, only seen in twice, rank ÖverCaptain, means more than captain, in Battletech something like a Battalion Leader... the term is swedish and hard to pinpoint... it is used only in the Arms of Thor mercenary unit...--Pserratv (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2019 (EST)
I think the easiest way to handle this one is to keep it super simple. A Major is still a Major and the article reflects this:

"Depending on the faction, officers holding this rank typically command battalions or act as the executive officer of a larger formation. They also act as staff officers, handling logistics, intelligence, etc. for their units."

So the line in the article under Castillan Principalities would state that a Major commands a Company in their armed forces and Comandante and ÖverCaptain have their own small articles. Failing that, the hard way is to trigger a review of the whole system and restructure tge parent article to be Battallion Commander and have various ranks redirect there and make use of stuff like "Captain (CP)  # Battalion Commander # Castillan Principalities | Captain." That does seem like a nightmare though.--Dmon (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2019 (EST)
If ÖverCaptain does essentially mean Battalion Leader it could be fitted into the Major article under "Other Factions > Arms of Thor" possibly, simply because "Over Captain is well... The rank above a Captain :-p .--Dmon (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I think this is a real-world problem that spilled over into BattleTech, and not a BT-specific problem. For example, took me ages to realize that a US Lieutenant is the functional equivalent of a present-day German Hauptmann (Captain), while the German Leutnant is the equivalent of a US Ensign. Check Wikipedia for military ranks in NATO (the O-somethings). Frabby (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I fully agree this is a real think: every army has its own ranks, and as battletech ranks were made thinking on basic actual Military ranks... this gets crazy. What I'll do is create Major (Castillan Principalities) as a redirect to the captain page, and treat overcaptain as you said. And then I'll review ranks and ranks and enjoy it.--Pserratv (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2019 (EST)
Indeed it is a very much real world problem that has spilled over, I very strongly think that Major (Castillan Principalities) is the wrong way to do this unless we plan to update every single rank on the entire wiki though.--Dmon (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2019 (EST)
The reason to do this major think is because all ranks in that page which are major redirect to Major (Commander, Sho-sa...). And to redirect Major to Captain for the Castillian Principalities I thought a redirect was also needed and created it this way.--Pserratv (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2019 (EST)
You need to stop thinking of Major automaticcaly commands a Battalion. A major from the CP is still a Major, the difference is that major only commands a Company not a Battalion. The CP is still called a major... And the Major article is about the rank Major, not specifically the command of Battalion sized units.. If that makes any sense at all.--Dmon (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2019 (EST)
I have edited Captain#Castillan Principalities to reflect how I think we should handle this rather than try to explain.--Dmon (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (EST)
Though I like the way you have remade that part, I feel it should still say that rank in Castillan Principalities is known as Major. That said, let me explain the reason behind creating Major (Castillan Principalities). For the Captain rank for which it is equivalent, we have these redirect links:

So for me it made sense to create Major (Castillan Principalities)... same way as we should have Captain-General (HSF) as this rank is a Leftant General in the Hanseatic League--Pserratv (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2019 (EST)

You kind of missed the point I was making, The rank of captain is not known as a Major, because the rank is Captain. All those other names are based on being equivalent ranks based on position but if you read the rank articles they use a lot of words like "usually", "typically". A Captain (CP) is not an equivalent rank, it is the same rank, the place it occupies within a TO&E structure is technically irrevelent. If the article was called Company commander then Major (CP) would be appropriate as that is the position.
This whole thing is a hot mess but so it is in real life. Ranks, Titles and Positions are all heavily linked but they can be seperated until we get to the really high levels.
Given the Mercentile aspects of a HSF Captain-General I feel that to call it a Leftant General is also incorrect as the position sounds a lot more involved than just the commander of troops..--Dmon (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2019 (EST)
I've used the Field Manual: Periphery, p. 14 "Periphery Comparative Rank Table". My understanding while reading it is that what in "Castillan Principalities" is called Major, the Umayyids say Amir kabir and the Lyrans say Hauptmann, so they are named differently though they all represent a Captain. That said, they might command more or less people, but they are the same.--Pserratv (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2019 (EST)
But that's the question, isn't it - you've got the word (captain), and you've got the meaning (commander of a company), and they don't always align. Maybe we should look for an abstract real-world style ranking system. Then again, who knows if all factions could even be made to work with that single sheet. And that's before merc units and their ranks (or sometimes lack thereof) even comes into play... Frabby (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2019 (EST)
What I tried to use was the official BattleTech table: Periphery Comparative Rank Table, where it tries to explain how to compare ranks, in order to align them, I mean, in terms of "power", or for a joint-force, for example during Operation Serpent. For me those tables try to explain how ranks are aligned.--Pserratv (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2019 (EST)


Drop down list[edit]

Hello Dmon, it is possible to include drop down list [drop down list] at sarna?. With best regards neuling.

I have not actually seen a proper dropdown list on the site (or any other wiki I use), I think the closest we have is scroll boxes. What are you planning to use them for as I might be able to find something to help even if not proper dropdown lists.--Dmon (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2019 (EST)
Do you perchance mean a table like this one here: DropShip#Manufacturing? (I've been pondering if that format would be good for the List of BattleTech products, but that's for another discussion.) Frabby (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2019 (EST)
Interesting find there Frabby, It gives me idea... Dmon/Navbox test--Dmon (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2019 (EST)
I think I found a proper solution. You can take a look at my notes site Neuling#Drop Down. What is your opinion about it and how we can make a good use of it? Neulinng
Ah yes that is pretty much the effect I was trying to get but due to being on my phone editing wikicode is a real chore.--Dmon (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2019 (EST)
It looks nice, but tables of any sort always have two problems: They may not work properly in all browsers (and be a nightmare on smartphones); and - this is my concern about the product list in particular - they make very long articles yet longer, by essentially creating a database-style article. If we begin to include individual novels and Epubs in the master product list, it's going to be a very very long (and ever growing) article to begin with. Making it into a sortable database might run into problems sooner or later. But I'm a technical noob, so maybe someone with actual knowledge may have something enlightening to say on the matter. Frabby (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (EST)
I agree that tables are problematic and should only really be used under certain circumstances. As it is I think the product list is quite good considering just how much we have crammed in there. Making the lists sortable is a great idea and easy to implement with minimum effort but after having a tinker with the code adding dropdown (turns out the proper term us collapsible) tables and making it work in a way I am happy with is going to be difficult. As for adding in the Novels and Epubs, I would like them included but I think it will stretch the utility of the current format to the limit, specifically looking at around 2010 - 2012 area where BT seems to have a huge number of releases.--Dmon (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Mercenary units in Mercenary's Handbook[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I was reviewing the 3025 Mercenaries Handbook and found some units I'm not seeing in the wiki. Do we have any page with all mercenary logos to quickly look on them? Examples are: - 17th Recon Battalion (it is not Camacho's Caballeros, logo is at least different) - 12th Striker Regiment - 3rd Recon Company

And the rest of the unit's logos there are from existing mercenary units.

I can create the articles, no problem, but the gallery could be interesting.--Pserratv (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2019 (EST)

I am not entierly sure if we do have a gallery, Cache is probably the best person to ask. I had a feeling that they might be sub-units from one of the SLDF units that turned mercenary after the exodus and it turns out that 12th Striker might be 21st Striker Regiment.--Dmon (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Done--Pserratv (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Yeah deffo ELH units. 3rd Recon is listed on p74, and 17th is on p75 with the nickname "Screaming Eagles", that matches up quite well with the logo.--Dmon (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Victor Milan famously mistook the ELH's 12th Recon Regiment for a separate, individual merc unit when he created Camacho's Caballeros from them. :) So you're not the first to overlook the connection.
As for galleries, not sure if we want or need a gallery of merc unit insignia. To quote our Policy:Images, "Sarna is not an image repository". Frabby (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2019 (EST)
And that is why I love this wiki, I learn new stuff all the time!--Dmon (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (EST)
All closed them... I didn't want to create a new gallery, I was trying to quickly find the logos in a single place :)--Pserratv (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2019 (EST)
I'm a bit late to the conversation, but we do have unit logo galleries, which were created because while Sarna isn't an image repository, we do use unit logos, and finding logos that had been uploaded but not added to articles was proving an impossible task. It's a sub-gallery of the faction logos gallery, and is broken down along faction service lines. You can get to it by clicking on the "Galleries" link on the Background tab at the left of the wiki, and then navigating through the Faction Logos Gallery to the Unit Logos Gallery and it's sub-galleries. While I'd agree Sarna shouldn't be an image repository, there's a difference between being an image repository and having an organisational system for images that are actually integral to one of our biggest classes of articles that allows you to actually find and use those images - it brings order and usability to chaos. (I may be faintly biased.) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Award[edit]

Hi Dmon,

My editing time got massively curtailed by a big reorganisation at work that left me with little or not time and privacy to edit, so I've been conspicuous by my absence for the last few months. I do try and keep up with the recent edits though, and one of the things I've observed is that you've been a constant presence here, not only churning through work, but helping, advising and encouraging other editors. That's an excellent thing to be doing, and I think you should have another Random Act of Appreciation Award for it: Random Act of Appreciation Award, 2nd ribbon BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Thank you BM, I had a similar situation but in reverse. Changed my job role and suddenly found myself with huge amounts of dead time so the wiki seemed like a way to use said dead time for something productive.--Dmon (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Advanced Technology Year[edit]

It may seem like a stupid question but what is an "Advanced Technology Year"? Is it different in universe from year available?--Dmon (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2019 (EST)

The idea is to track what year technologies move from Experimental Rules to Advanced Rules to Tournament Legal rules. Obviously I need to re-write that for clarity. --Mbear(talk) 08:39, 21 February 2019 (EST)